“Information technology companies gather as much information/data on people as they can,” Lee said in a letter to the company.
“Whether they admit to it or not [see Edward Snowden], such information is used as currency between corporations.”
He said “all the largest technology companies – such as Apple, Google, Facebook, Telstra, Samsung – are in a race to access and store as much data on individuals as they can. This info is then traded and exchanged”.
Despite not having a privacy policy or providing staff with the required notice saying how they would keep their private information safe, Superior Wood fired Mr Lee for refusing what it said was a reasonable direction.
Scanners ‘improve safety’
In her initial decision, Fair Work commissioner Jennifer Hunt upheld the sacking as she said Mr Lee’s objections were unreasonable given the scanners “improved safety” by allowing quick headcounts during an evacuation.
She said Superior Wood’s failure to issue required notices to employees did not render Mr Lee’s dismissal unfair or make its policy requirement to use the scanners unlawful.
“While there may have been a breach of the Privacy Act relevant to the notice given to employees, the private and sensitive information was not collected and would never be collected relevant to Mr Lee because of his steadfast refusal,” she said.
“The policy itself is not unlawful, simply the manner in which the employer went about trying to obtain consent may have constituted a breach of the Privacy Act.”
‘Exchange of labour becomes collection of information’
Representing himself on appeal, Mr Lee said the decision was contradictory.
“The ruling states consent is implied by providing a scan. The ruling also says my privacy can only be breached if I provide a scan … Taken together, this means that a breach of my privacy is impossible.”
He also questioned the validity of consent where an employee is fired if they did not agree and said the ruling meant “all employers may legally sack employees for refusing to provide their sensitive information”.
“This decision changes the nature of the relationship between employer/employee from an exchange of labour to one which includes the collection of employees’ sensitive information.”
Superior Wood argued employee records were exempted under the Privacy Act and there was no distinction between those records and the process of obtaining them.
The company argue the lawfulness of its collection was irrelevant as Mr Lee would have refused to provide his consent, whether its process was lawful or not.
The bench held there were grounds for appeal, including whether privacy exemptions for employee records extended to how they were created.
It also said the commission would consider whether employees could give “implied consent” by registering their fingerprints without notices under the Privacy Act.
from Just News Viral http://bit.ly/2SYzabZ
0 Comments